Disruption is now business canon, even though it has legit critics and isn't general as many think. What was it like face "disruption" right when the paper/book came out in late 90s? Here's "Hardcore Software" on gaining org alignment for "Office9". 1/13 …rdcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/049-go-get-t…
2/ My favorite thing about disruption is how stories are always told after-the-fact when everything seems so clean and neat. Or conversely when everyone is quick to say and agree "ripe for disruption". Few consider the variable of time. Everything much more difficult.
3/ In early 1997, Office had just really taken off on Windows with Windows 95. It was a huge hit and half of Microsoft's revenue. The internet was happening at the same time. And then "Innovator's Dilemma" came out. Everyone was being disrupted. (Annual report)
4/ A key element of disruption is what goes on inside a company when disruption happens. The story is often told as though it is a technology bet that the old guard won't make and the new insurgent technologists know what is better.
Ha, that's the academic version :-)
5/ Microsoft was hardly so simple. The company was over 20,000 people. Office was a tiny group relatively in the corner even compared to most R&D groups (lean!!). Here's the contemporaneous company org chart (courtesy Directions on Microsoft, @getwired). Looks like a VLSI layout.
6/ The internet was also very "new". There were new technologies coming out all the time. Many seized on "disruptive" theory as a way to promote their new thing. Inside Microsoft, suddenly a big topic was how Office was going to be disrupted by new tech. Here's the complexity.
7/ Different parts of Microsoft had different ideas about which new "tech" would disrupt Office. Disruption was certain. Office was viewed as "not getting it". But the problem was even if we agreed we couldn't respond to each different tech.
We could only build one product.
8/ Was it building Office for the browser? In 1997 HTML 3.2 just got published. Scripting was still new and not settled. HTTP servers were still not app servers. Netscape could build lots into a browser. Internet Explorer wanted us to align with IE and extend IE to build Office.
9/ Many knew the browser wasn't enough so they created Java to run in the browser. But that was kind of a hack. The allure of write-once-run-anywhere was HUGE. Sun backed it. But it kind of didn't work. The Dev Tools team at MS was really freaked out about java v. Visual Basic.
10/ Java Beans and "Components" was a whole other way to build software that might run in browsers. COM-component object model-was viewed by many at MS as "crown jewels". To battle components we created ActiveX. Some thought Office in ActiveX avoided disruption. (Beans "Arrive"!)
11/ Network Computers were a new idea--a computer that was just a browser (!!). These were freaking out the Windows team because they were an assauly on all of desktop computing. They required Office in a browser, and a server. NCs go beyond hype (!)
12/ So question is how to work through what to do and what bets to make. There was a huge amount of uncertainty and almost panic leading to a lot of angst. In the post in hardcore software I go through these technologies and how the company was conflicted. Wrote a long memo :=)
13/ Please consider subscribing and joining in the journey of the PC. I'd appreciate it! Thank you. Next post is on the actual plan for "Office9". …rdcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com
PS/ I think this post is perhaps what it feels like to be in traditional finance or banking these days, thinking through the technology of/competitors in crypto/defi/neobanks/etc and the different parts of a BigCo pointing at entrenched interests and potential technologies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Early-Childhood Tablet Use and Outbursts of Anger - // This study is out today and getting broad media play piling on to more evidence tech is bad. It is so dumb a read it should be getting coverage for how bad it is at science not as a way to "exercise caution in tablets." 1/
2/ This study appears to be instantly generalized to all screens and all content. The underlying tool used to measure the use of *tablets* is a survey+tool described in this referenced study ("CAFE"). Today's paper clearly takes a subset of this data, which is itself questionable.
3/ The underlying study as of 2020 says it monitors content on Android devices. I can't tell and there's no open data available to confirm that for today's study (that I could find.) This is a minor point perhaps but has obvious issues with sampling. But there are other issues:
Today the US DOJ+16 states/DC (HA we had 19+) filed suit against Apple over abuse of market position ̷b̷y̷ ̷m̷a̷k̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷a̷ ̷v̷a̷s̷t̷l̷y̷ ̷b̷e̷t̷t̷e̷r̷ ̷c̷o̷m̷p̷u̷t̷e̷r̷ in an effort to keep customers reliant on iPhone.
🧵contd until I lose steam
1. This is scary/concerning/freaky if you work at Apple. My first thoughts go to them. What I can say is heads down, be patient. It’s an ultramarathon.
2. If you are a competitor cheering then history tells us down the road you will either become a faded memory or will be sued.
Of course I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be one. When the Microsoft case first started in the early 90s. MS’s GC said to me “you have to remember, people who chose to practice antitrust (AT) law not only believe in it but see ‘monopolies’ and ‘abuse’ everywhere.”
So much of the evolution of technology can be summed up by “what’s new, was already done before…but being first (or early) if often no different in result than being wrong.”
Of course being done before is never ever the same as the new things… 1/
2/ New things that appear to have been done before have a different perspective, bring unique market forces to a problem, and rely on technologies that are often more mature, not brand new.
Many latest and greatest inventions fail and need to be reinvented in new contexts.
3/ I lived through too many Microsoft examples where we were “first”—even “innovative”—only to watch other companies come along and capitalize on something conceptually close/identical but implemented entirely differently.
Their patience and choices made all the difference.
Apple's 'Mother Nature' sketch was a complete dud, and didn't belong… // No, no. Issue is much more subtle and practical. Need to separate weird marketing from reality. This is greenwashing but the green is…profit. This isn't Bud Light. Or even "woke" 1/appleinsider.com/articles/23/09…
2/Sure the presentation might have been awkward or even a dud to some. A quasi-religious tone viz. Mother Nature isn't everyone's approach.
At the same time, every fact or position put forth is a strategic, margin-positive, and innovative effort from Apple. Super important.
3/ Start with packaging. Most people haven't thought much about packaging. Even most who have made something needing a package haven't thought about it. Packaging is *expensive* and necessary. It is also a whole discipline. How many knew you could get a PhD in packaging?
Why are people so quick to proclaim failure for new products? It seems a dumb thing to ask. I mean knowledgable people look at a new product and think it doesn't cut it and will fail. Much more going on. Innovation is nearly impossible to deliver. Harder to predict/analyze. 1/
2/ Regardless of the era, predicting failure has always been easy, always been attention grabbing, and always kind of fun. Some say it's necessary simply to counter the marketing and power of the launch. Silly. A launch still has to battle the market. The market is really brutal.
3/ Predicting failure is a form of social credit, a way of elevating oneself above the company. It is in effect a power grab. It is also a form of grift. A con. These are harsh words but let me explain.
Not a prediction for WWDC. But want to share what I will be looking for, IFF Apple announces a new platform and hardware. New platforms are super exciting. But a new platform from a massively established company is an extra degree of difficulty. 1/
2/ The an insurgent releases a new platform such as the original iPhone Google Chrome, or chatGPT, there’s nothing but upside. The risk is existential failure for the platform but not risk to a massive existing business.
3/ With an already existing platform business, launching an additional one does not happen in isolation. Instead, the new platform is all about how it connects to the existing efforts. This “synergy” can be viewed as a tax or as leverage. Just depends.